Opinion
Column

Universities lose way in quest for real truths

This month, the University of Toronto undertook what should be the norm in all academic environments: It held a debate on gender identity and gender expression in Canadian legislation, and, more specifically, whether or not professors, or any citizen for that matter, should be compelled to use made-up, gender-neutral pronouns.

Arguing against compelled speech was Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, who maintained this reflected an ideologically pernicious and scientifically invalid attempt to control thought. Peterson's position was contested by Brenda Cossman, a law professor at the same university and director of the Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies and Mary Bryson, an education professor at the University of British Columbia. Peterson's opponents argued that compelled speech was justified if it helped reduce inequality and show respect and compassion for marginalized groups.

Bryson suggested during the debate that much of Peterson's argument constituted "hate propaganda." If this assessment of Peterson's position is accepted, he could suffer reprisals.

While the events of the past month should concern any supporter of free speech, perhaps the most disturbing element is the fact that so few academics publicly have supported Peterson.

It is both a right and a duty for a professor to pursue and disseminate what he or she perceives to be the truth. This is what Peterson is doing, and all of his colleagues should appreciate his principled stance even if they disagree with what he says.

More than 100 years ago, the philosopher John Stuart Mill provided two of the best reasons for why Peterson should be supported in his struggle.

The first is that Peterson's arguments could be true. This is a distinct possibility because of the political climate in which trans issues are currently discussed. There is a reluctance to question the arguments of the "positive space" lobby, and such groupthink often leads to poorly thought-out arguments.

The second reason is that, even if Peterson's arguments are wrong, they can teach us a great deal about what makes an idea valid. Therefore, they should be continuously and systematically examined to understand how they are flawed, so a closer approximation of the truth can be reached.

The people trying to silence Peterson have made up their minds, and they don't want to listen to viewpoints that would challenge their own. They are trying to impose censorship on all members of society because, as advocates, they don't want to deal with the consequences of being wrong. This anti-intellectualism is completely inconsistent with what a university is supposed to be about.

While apathy and careerism always have impeded the university's academic mission, there is another reason professors might not be coming to Peterson's defence. This is the enactment of "hate speech" legislation and the Supreme Court of Canada's prohibition on claims that are "likely to expose" groups to "detestation or vilification." In this area of law, truth is not a defence, as factual claims could provoke hostility toward marginalized groups and justify discrimination.

While the Peterson affair has focused our attention on one particular instance of how academic inquiry is being constrained by ideologically inspired authoritarianism, the problem lies much deeper. Universities have lost their way and no longer see the pursuit of truth as their ultimate aim.

Frances Widdowson is an associate professor in Mount Royal University department of economics, justice and policy studies.